Dot-reph is not used in modern script. This does not mean that it has been replaced by Chillu-RA/RRA or <RA, VIRAMA>. Instead, modern script devised a different method (transcribe) to write words which had Dot-Reph in them.

Both of the following examples provide the evidence that, equivalences or fall-backs between Dot-Reph and Chillu-RA/RRA or <RA, VIRAMA> are not reliable.

Suppose Dot-Reph is made equivalent to Chillu-RA/RRA and a young writer using modern font writes /paarvathi/ as . A person and using traditional (old orthography) font would see the incorrect rendering as while he expects .

In this case, the transcribing of <RA, VA, VA> from old orthography to new is made as <Chillu-RA/RRA, VA>.

As of now, there is no reliable mapping between Dot-Reph and Chillu-RA/RRA or RA_dead. Transcribing is the only option between traditional and modern texts. So the words with
Dot-Reph should be displayed as it is, irrespective of the nature of font. That is guaranteed only by encoding Dot-Reph.

This will give complete control for the writer to choose the style he want. This paradigm is similar to the decision to independently encode Chillu-RA/RRA.